RAMESHWARI AGRO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.187&188/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………....Appellant C/O Lakshman Prasad & Kamlesh Kr. Yadav (Directors), Jai Gurudev Automobile, Gaya Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824113. [Pan: Aahcr9701K] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………………….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 29.07.24 & 31.07.24 Passed By The Nfac ["Cit(A)"]. Since The Issues Involved In Ita Nos.187 & 188/Patna/2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Are Identical Except For Figures & Assessment Years, Both Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Facts Are First Taken From Ita No.187/Patna/2025. 2. Ita No. 187/Patna/ 2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment

Section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but failed to comply with notices on several dates Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order, upholding the assessment made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Dissatisfied with the above

RAMESHWARI AGRO SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.187&188/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rameshwari Agro Services Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………....Appellant C/O Lakshman Prasad & Kamlesh Kr. Yadav (Directors), Jai Gurudev Automobile, Gaya Road, Daudnagar, Aurangabad, Bihar-824113. [Pan: Aahcr9701K] Vs. Nfac, Delhi…………………….……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Dated 29.07.24 & 31.07.24 Passed By The Nfac ["Cit(A)"]. Since The Issues Involved In Ita Nos.187 & 188/Patna/2025 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Are Identical Except For Figures & Assessment Years, Both Appeals Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, The Facts Are First Taken From Ita No.187/Patna/2025. 2. Ita No. 187/Patna/ 2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 - Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Its Return Of Income For The Assessment

Section 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but failed to comply with notices on several dates Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order, upholding the assessment made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Dissatisfied with the above

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. P a g e 1 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal” “1. For that the CIT(A) has erred in affirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.143(3)/147 wherein the Assessing Officer has assessed

JAYA NURSING HOME,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, The Appeal Was Dismissed Ex Parte On Account Of Non-Compliance On Various Dates, Thereby Sustaining The Order Of The Assessing Officer.

section 69A of the Act. 2 Jaya Nursing Home 3. Aggrieved by the above order the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed ex parte on account of non-compliance on various dates, thereby sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well